Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37650032›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2022

Evaluating the accuracy of data extracted from electronic health records into MedicineInsight, a national Australian general practice database.

Benjamin Daniels, Alys Havard, Rimma Myton, Cynthia Lee, Kendal Chidwick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of population data science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Benjamin DanielsNPS MedicineWise, Level 7 / 418a Elizabeth St, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012, Sydney, Australia.
Alys HavardNPS MedicineWise, Level 7 / 418a Elizabeth St, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012, Sydney, Australia.
Rimma MytonNPS MedicineWise, Level 7 / 418a Elizabeth St, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012, Sydney, Australia.
Cynthia LeeNPS MedicineWise, Level 7 / 418a Elizabeth St, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012, Sydney, Australia.
Kendal ChidwickNPS MedicineWise, Level 7 / 418a Elizabeth St, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: MedicineInsight is a database containing de-identified electronic health records (EHRs) from over 700 Australian general practices. Previous research validated algorithms used to derive medical condition flags in MedicineInsight, but the accuracy of data fields following EHR extractions from clinical practices and data warehouse transformation processes have not been formally validated. Objectives: To examine the accuracy of the extraction and transformation of EHR fields for selected demographics, observations, diagnoses, prescriptions, and tests into MedicineInsight. Methods: We benchmarked MedicineInsight values against those recorded in original EHRs. Forty-six general practices contributing data to MedicineInsight met our eligibility criteria, eight were randomly selected, and four agreed to participate. We randomly selected 200 patients >18 years of age within each participating practice from MedicineInsight. Trained staff reviewed the original EHRs for the selected patients and recorded data from the relevant fields. We calculated the percentage of agreement (POA) between MedicineInsight and EHR data for all fields; Cohen's Kappa for categorical and intra-class correlation (ICC) for continuous measures; and sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) for diagnoses. Results: A total of 796 patients were included in our analysis. All demographic characteristics, observations, diagnoses, prescriptions and random pathology test results had excellent (>90%) POA, Kappa, and ICC. POA for most recent pathology/imaging test was moderate (81%, [95% CI: 78% to 84%]). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were excellent (>90%) for all but one of the examined diagnoses which had a poor PPV. Conclusions: Overall, our study shows good agreement between the majority of MedicineInsight data and those from original EHRs, suggesting MedicineInsight data extraction and warehousing procedures accurately conserve the data in these key fields. Discrepancies between test data may have arisen due to how data from pathology, radiology and other imaging providers are stored in EHRs and MedicineInsight and this requires further investigation.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsGeneral PracticeAustraliaFamily PracticeHumansRecordselectronic health recordsprimary carevalidation

Identifiers

PMID37650032
PMCPMC10464870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.